Comments by Terra

It always disappoints me when I encounter hostility and animosity in these forums.

For starters, I am strong privacy rights advocate, and NOT in favor of strict gun control laws.

Having said that, I have these questions: 1) The 'welfare check' was requested because of "DISTURBING VIDEOS" he posted on YouTube; checking them was paramount. They asked him about the videos yet didn't know the content? 2) Why did six officers conduct the check? Not one of them could search YouTube for the videos? 3) Is there a reason they didn't check the gun registry considering a parent/therapist/friend expressed concern about his welfare?

I am speaking about this unique situation; not advocating that gun checks be done at whim. The same goes for social media; if the call referenced "disturbing videos" that should've been part of the investigation.

I have a 'minor' in Feminist Studies from UCSB, and my politics, while non-dogmatic, lean to the left. When I first read about the professor's behavior, I cringed. She was clearly in the wrong. I am an emotional person, and have very strong beliefs, but I hope I'd have more self-control in that situation.

Mr. Young's statement is meandering, perplexing, and even startling. I understand, as one commenter posted, that he'd want to tread carefully while the saga plays out. But at times, his comments are so generic that I'm not sure what he is referencing; and his 'message' is inconsistent. He tells students to tolerate others, yet he denigrates 'outsiders' whose motives and intentions aren't pure. That is bothersome.

This letter adds to the disgrace that has fallen on UCSB. As a proud feminist and graduate of the university, I am disappointed by how the faculty and administrators have handled this issue. It's an embarrassment.

Finally, I'd like to add how frustrating it is to read comment after comment that attack posters so harshly. It's as if the confrontation between the protestor and the professor has been recreated in the story's comment section.

I am sooo tired of people who want to legislate the behavior of others. "Give her/the family space!" they yell. "Leave her/them alone!" "It's a private matter/not our business!"

Please explain why commenting and/or speculating in a comment section violates her "space." Or infringes on her "privacy."

Please explain, dear self-righteous souls, why you are writing about this, reading this, commenting on this if it's not anybody's "business." Close the comment section if it's causing Ms. Lopez harm and don't mention her name in the paper.

People are responding to stories in the *public domain*. They are not on her lawn shouting into bullhorns. They are not following her around in their cars and into the supermarket.

As someone with bipolar disorder, I would guess the 'medical condition' is of a psychiatric nature. There are plenty of clues to support this ('missing' after 30 min, no foul play, but concern about her 'welfare').

In the end it doesn't matter. But *if* this event involves a mental health issue, the family's response is all too familiar. They 'hide' the truth from the public. They can't speak about it or it would 'embarrass' her/them and/or harm her career. If the incident had been caused by a diabetic episode, I doubt we'd be speculating about the nature of the condition. It would've been named. It's heartbreaking that mental illness is viewed as something to be ashamed of, something that could hurt your standing in the world.